Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2000-06-14-Speech-3-059"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20000614.4.3-059"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Mr President-in-Office of the Council, Commissioner, as you can see, the European Parliament takes a very close interest in this new policy, which will become the common European security and defence policy, and we will have occasion to discuss it often in the future.
With regard to our relations with NATO, I paid great attention to what you said, Mr President-in-Office of the Council. This is a very important and sensitive point, especially as it relates to the future of the European Union.
Finally, Mr President, I shall in turn stress a matter to which the European Parliament understandably attaches great importance: the parliamentary dimension of security and defence policy. Even if the executive must always have overall responsibility for this matter, we must stress the role of parliaments, both national parliaments and the European Parliament. So far, you have kept rather quiet on this point.
Today, knowing that this issue is to be discussed at the Feira Summit, we would like to ask you about the intentions of the Council and the Commission, and also to share our views and hopes with you. We shall be expressing these in the resolution which we are to vote on, I hope, tomorrow.
Mr President, Commissioner, I should first of all like to thank you for the opening statements you have just made, including your words on the pointlessness of a possible revision of the Treaties. I am now speaking in my capacity as rapporteur for the Committee on Foreign Affairs, Human Rights, Common Security and Defence Policy, but in more general terms, I think I can say that the great majority of the European Parliament, which does not mean unanimously, approves, as I do, of the new impetus that the Cologne and Helsinki Summits have given to this policy since the Treaty of Amsterdam.
Bosnia and Kosovo, as Mr Brok reminded us a few minutes ago, demonstrated – if proof were necessary – Europe’s shortcomings, both in terms of prevention and of how we manage crises and extricate ourselves from them. We also observed that we were still too dependent on the United States for our security. In short, we are satisfied with the guidelines and with the decisions that have been adopted over the last year but we expect the Feira Summit and then the French Presidency to continue and expedite their actual implementation. In fact, we currently have what could be called a ‘window of opportunity’ following the shock that has been felt across the Balkans. Unless we take advantage today of these favourable circumstances, we fear that this new policy may become bogged down in various procedures that will, in fact, paralyse it.
That being the case, the European Parliament must draw a clear distinction between civilian and military crisis management. The former is obviously the approach we favour. In this area, the Commission has an essential role to play and we welcome the efforts that have been made recently, Commissioner, but I must stress a few specific points. How can we further improve our swift decision-making and rapid action capabilities? By the same token, how can we guarantee effective coordination, which is a continual problem, between the Council, the Council’s High Representative, the Commission, and in some cases, Member States, NGOs etc? In order to achieve this, we strongly urge the Council and the Commission to set the major common objectives known as ‘Headline Goals’ in advance so that everyone knows in advance what they can or must do, when confronted with a sudden crisis.
Finally, I would remind you of our commitment to creating a European civilian peace corps, with the same rationale: speed and efficiency. What do you intend to do, Commissioner? Whatever course of action we may prefer for dealing with crises through civilian means, we know perfectly well that we also need military means, if only to deter certain parties from committing barbarous acts.
There is still much to be done to ensure that the European Union has adequate military resources, which is why we are putting these questions to you. We are questioning you about the establishment of a rapid reaction force, which must be operational within three years, and on the creation of political and military decision-making structures, as has been provided for a few months now. What is the state of play? We are asking you about restructuring the armed forces in order to improve their training, equipment and ability to work together, regardless of their country of origin. We also wish to question you as to the state of play with regard to the necessary restructuring of the armament and military hardware industries and the budgetary resources that might prove necessary."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples